On Fri, 8 Sep 2000, Karim Yaghmour wrote:
> I'm sorry to say this, but you got this all upside down. Paolo and
> all the other RTAI developers, for that matter, have been very keen to
> recognize the contributions of RTL. The contrary, though, is not
> true. RTL developers have strived very hard to demonstrate that RTAI
> "features" are, at best, trivial to implement and, at worst, technically
> deficient. Now, these guys can go on believing what they wish, and so
> can you, but from where I stand, I don't see any reason why anyone would
> choose RTL over RTAI, because of the feature-rich nature of RTAI. By this
> I mean that there are things possible in RTAI which aren't possible in RTL,
> least of them enabling a normal Linux process to become hard-RT, which,
> for me at least, deserves a Nobel by itself.
Well, let me try (as a _neutral_ observer) to make this clear: there
is a trade-off between (i) adding features that people (think they)
need, and (ii) offering a system that is and remains as predictable as
possible. The former is the Microsoft/RTAI/... way, the latter is
Linux(kernel)/RTL/... way.
( Don't flame me for being over-simplistic :-) )
There is a room for both parts of this spectrum.
> I applaud the wisdom of the RTAI guys for having recognized that RTL
> was a dead-end
??Mmmm. Strong claim you make here :-)
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ph.D.) Fax: +32-(0)16-32 29 87
Dept. Mechanical Eng., Div. PMA, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Belgium
Real Time and Embedded HOWTO:
<http://www.mech.kuleuven.ac.be/~bruyninc/rthowto>
-- [rtl] ---
To unsubscribe:
echo "unsubscribe rtl" | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] OR
echo "unsubscribe rtl <Your_email>" | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
For more information on Real-Time Linux see:
http://www.rtlinux.org/rtlinux/
